Available online from law.com: Tony Mauro reports that “Alabama Judge Declares War on U.S. Supreme Court; State justice says colleagues should ‘actively resist’ juvenile death penalty ruling.” The ruling in question celebrated its first birthday yesterday.

And in news from New York State, “2nd Circuit: Court Allowed to Ask if Lawyer ‘Fully Retained.’”

“Ex-governor, others lose latest appeal; Edwardses, aide convicted in 2000”: This article appears today in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans.

“SCC Says: ‘Kirpan Keepin’ On.'” At “PrawfsBlawg,” Paul Horwitz has this interesting post about today’s religious freedom ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. My earlier coverage is here.

“‘Heavy Hitter’ will sue ; State Bar contends nickname misleading”: This article appears today in The Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Don’t politicize judicial nominations: That’s the main point of an editorial entitled “Rothstein review invites concern” published two days ago in The Toronto Star.

“Bush Judge’s Rating Lowered”: The Center for Investigative Reporting has today issued a news release that begins, “In a rare move, the American Bar Association revoked its top rating of a Bush judicial nominee last week, after CIR revealed in a Salon.com story his repeated conflicts of interest while on the bench. The ABA originally gave Judge James H. Payne its highest mark – a unanimous ‘well qualified’ – after he was nominated to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by President Bush last fall. After conducting a special reevaluation, which included a talk with Payne, a large majority of the committee now finds him ‘qualified,’ while a minority voted him ‘not qualified.'”

You can access the revised ABA rating at this link.

“Unhappy Texas Dems: The Dems play the race card, ineffectively it would seem.” Stephen Spruiell has this essay today at National Review Online.

“South Dakota’s Fetal Position: State would ban more than abortions.” Ronald Bailey has this essay online at Reason.

“How Appealing for Bashman to Join Us”: Thanks to Chris Geidner for noting my upcoming appearance on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 in Columbus, Ohio. I linked to the flyer promoting the event in this earlier post.

“Moussaoui’s Sentence Centers on Legal Point”: The Associated Press provides this report.

If a judge is asleep at an appellate oral argument, blame the judge or blame the lawyer who is arguing? I’m a little bit amused at the seeming uproar across the blogosphere (see here and here) over news reports that during yesterday’s two-hour, afternoon U.S. Supreme Court argument in the Texas redistricting cases, one of the Justices appeared to take a short nap. While there is at least one study that purports to rank the Justices by the amount of laughter they elicit (as reported on here by Adam Liptak), I know of no academic research that ranks the Justices on account of their snoring.

In any event, if Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist during his final illness was able to participate in the decision of cases argued while he was not on the bench by reading the transcripts, I am confident that so can anyone who happens to doze or daydream. If only the more talkative Justices would try to catch some ZZZs during oral argument, then the oral advocates might get to make a point or two of their own.

“The Expansion of the ‘Supreme Court Bar'”: Tom Goldstein has this lengthy post at “SCOTUSblog.” In the post, he promises to “follow up tomorrow with a post on the conclusions that [he] reached that will lead to a very substantial change in [his] own practice and that of Goldstein & Howe.”

“State upholds death sentence”: The San Antonio Express-News today contains an article that begins, “Two years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Dallas killer’s trial was tainted by flawed jury instructions, Texas’ highest criminal court declined to throw out the convict’s death sentence on Wednesday, concluding that any problems with the instructions were harmless. To some observers, the ruling set the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals starkly at odds with the nation’s highest court.”

Yesterday’s ruling of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals consists of a majority opinion; a concurring opinion; and a dissenting opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court‘s ruling in the case, from November 2004, can be accessed here. At the time, Gina Holland of The Associated Press covered the ruling in an article headlined “Texan’s death sentence overturned.”

“Wallace nomination may end truce on Capitol Hill”: The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi today contains an article that begins, “A Capitol Hill truce over judicial nominees may have been shattered with the nomination of Jackson lawyer Michael Wallace to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”

“Supreme Court: Computer crash insufficient for new trial.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A computer crash that erased part of a trial transcript is insufficient reason to order a new trial in a criminal case, a sharply divided Florida Supreme Court decided Thursday.”

Today’s 4-3 ruling of the Supreme Court of Florida can be accessed here.

“High court hears redistricting case; Lawyers representing Hispanics and Democrats say the GOP-drawn Texas districts are unfair”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.

And The Hill reports today that “Justices eye Texas map.”

My earlier collection of related news coverage is here.

“S.D. Conservatives Seek Roe v. Wade Fight”: The Associated Press provides this report.

“Court declines to lift ban on House prayer”: This article appears today in The Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne, Indiana.

The Indianapolis Star reports today that “Bid to lift prayer ban in House fails.”

And The Louisville Courier-Journal reports that “Court won’t block ruling on official prayer in House.”

“The BlackBerry conundrum: Who gets on the ‘white list?’; Closing service could trigger stream of endless disputes.” The Toronto Globe and Mail today contains an article that begins, “As a U.S. federal judge deliberates on whether to order an injunction against BlackBerry wireless e-mail service and devices, he must weigh an ominous warning from Research In Motion Ltd. A shutdown will produce a ‘never-ending’ stream of disputes between the company and its nemesis NTP Inc. over which subscribers should be exempt, RIM has warned.”

“Alito thanks Focus for support; New Supreme Court justice sends letter to group founder James Dobson; A critic says Alito’s letter suggests he is pursuing a right-wing agenda, but other observers disagree”: This article appears today in The Denver Post.

“Supreme Court rules kirpans okay in school”: The Toronto Globe and Mail provides a news update that begins, “The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Sikh students can carry ceremonial daggers to class and that doing so does not pose a undue danger to others in the schools. The top court overturned Thursday morning a Quebec Court of Appeals ruling that had barred the kirpan from schools in the province. The Quebec court had said a limit on religious freedom was reasonable, given the safety concerns from carrying the daggers to school.”

And Canadian Press reports that “Dagger ban overturned; But officials may impose restrictions, top court rules.”

You can access today’s unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada at this link.

“Feinstein blocks nomination of Idaho judge to 9th Circuit”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California announced Wednesday she will block the nomination of an Idaho judge to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals because she contends the seat should go to someone from California.”

“Exclusive: Opponent says justice copied books; Willett says no need for attribution in application for state Supreme Court.” The Dallas Morning News today contains an article that begins, “Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett’s job application to the state included at least half a dozen examples of writing cribbed – without attribution – from two books by conservative legal stalwarts, the Republican’s opponent said Wednesday.” The job application can be accessed at this link (large PDF file).

In today’s edition of The Chicago Tribune: An editorial entitled “The government vs. you” begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last June that local governments may take land from a private owner and give it to another private owner, if it’s done in the name of improving the community.”

And public editor Don Wycliff has an essay headlined “‘Simpsons’ trumps the 1st.”

“Key witness Fastow finally slated to testify”: Mary Flood has this article today in The Houston Chronicle.

USA Today reports today that “Star witness Fastow expected to take stand early next week.”

And The New York Times reports today that “Ex-Enron Official Insists Chief Knew of Wrongdoing.”

“Top court debates Ohio tax break”: This article appears today in The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

The Boston Globe reports today that “Professor leads small group in battle with legal giants.”

The Canton Repository reports that “Supreme Court hears arguments over tax incentives for Ohio plant.”

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that “Court to rule on tax breaks; States’ incentives to firms challenged.”

USA Today reports that “Top court skeptical of tax credit lawsuits.”

And Booth Newspapers report that “Michigan argues to keep tax breaks for business, in Supreme Court case.”

“Judge backs down in rape trial; Woman won’t face jail for refusing to view tape of alleged assault”: The Chicago Tribune contains this article today, along with a profile of the judge headlined “Kennedy’s background as defense attorney.”

And The Chicago Sun-Times today contains an article headlined “Judge: Woman need not view tape.”

“UCI Psychiatrist Bilked by Nigerian E-Mails, Suit Says; Dr. Louis A. Gottschalk lost perhaps $3 million over 10 years in the scam, his son alleges in court document”: This article appears today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Saudi Group Alleges Wiretapping by U.S.; Defunct Charity’s Suit Details Eavesdropping”: The Washington Post contains this front page article today.

“Death-row inmate awaits ruling on execution method”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.

“Prisons Often Shackle Pregnant Inmates in Labor”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

“Justices Express Concern Over Aspects of Some Texas Redistricting”: Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.

In The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports today that “Justices Hint Texas Redistricting Will Stand; Politics is partisan, they note during oral arguments over Tom DeLay’s map, which benefited Republicans.”

In USA Today, Joan Biskupic and Jim Drinkard report that “Challenge to Texas’ political map meets skepticism at court; Congressional districts redrawn by GOP; justices say politics just part of the process.”

In The Dallas Morning News, Allen Pusey and Todd J. Gillman report that “Justices signal support for most redrawn districts; But many seem open to questions that two areas hurt Hispanic voters.”

In The Houston Chronicle, Patty Reinert reports that “Redistricting’s fate may hinge on whether new map is biased; Though it isn’t clear how the top court will rule, its key centrist voter expresses concern.”

The Austin American-Statesman reports that “High court seems skeptical of redistricting claims; In Democrats’ case, justices focus on racial gerrymandering and compactness of redrawn districts.”

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “Court seems to favor GOP redistricting arguments.”

In The Chicago Tribune, Naftali Bendavid reports that “Some justices skeptical that redistricting went too far.”

And CNN.com reports that “High court wades into Texas political shootout; Justices seem reluctant to dismiss disputed redistricting plan.”